<p>This is often cited as a case of admit rate being a poor statistic in measuring selectivity. Could somebody tell me why (in UChicago's particular case)?</p>
<p>Side question - would you say that UChicago is more selective than Duke or Cornell?</p>
<p>Actually, U of Chicago’s latest admission rate is about 25%, more in line with schools like Johns Hopkins. As has been stated in numerous postings, Chicago has had a unique approach to admissions. First of all, the school has previously tended to be more self selecting than Cornell or Duke. What that has meant is that people applying to the school do not apply as randomly as they might to ivies or a school like Duke thus leading to a higher admission rate ( less unqualified students applying leads to less rejections numerically). Applicants are aware of the intellectual nature and supposed intensity of the school and believe that they will fit in there. So the statistics and quality of applicants tends to be of a uniformly higher level than some other schools. People do not apply as randomly with the hope of lightning striking and getting accepted. Also, until last year, the school did not accept the common application and still requires a supplemental section with quirky essays that turns off many casual applicants. Ted O’Neill, the prior admissions director, has stepped down and there is now a new admissions department that may try to be more main stream and attract more of the applicants that Cornell or Duke may. This could result in an even lower admission rate in line with Cornell or Duke’s. Note that Chicago does look for student’s who really feel that they belong at the school and are a fit. Hence, students who get admitted to Duke or Cornell may get rejected and students who might not fit the more numbers oriented admissions of Duke or Cornell could possibly be admitted to Chicago. Nonetheless, statistics of admitted students at Chicago show GPA and SAT scores comparable to both of those schools. There have been many changes at Chicago in the last few years, with the school putting more emphasis on such things as student life and the arts and the way the school is publicized. This has and continues to result in major changes in admissions numbers and the philosophy of the admissions department. I think that in coming years, Chicago admissions may look more like those of schools like Cornell and Duke. Many at Chicago lament this, but these are the facts.</p>
<p>UC is a great school. The neighborhood isn’t, though. If you walk about 4 blocks in any direction you will find yourself in the ghetto. The turnout rate is horrible, so they have no choice but to accept more people.</p>
<p>source: living right next to campus</p>
<p>The main reason Chicago has a higher admit rate than Duke or Cornell is that it gets fewer applicants—about 12,000 at Chicago for the class entering in 2008, versus 20,000+ at Duke and 30,000+ at Cornell (though Cornell’s a much larger school). But the stats of the enrolled classes are pretty comparable, indeed close to identical at the three schools, from which we can infer that Chicago’s applicant pool must have very strong credentials. In short, it’s self-selecting; most people rule themselves out of the applicant pool at Chicago, in part because many are scared by the school’s reputation for rigor and a demanding workload. As a consequence, the school must admit a higher percentage of the smaller number who do apply in order to fill the available slots. But they don’t lose anything in quality by doing so because it’s such a self-selectively strong applicant pool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know what you mean by “turnout rate” but if you mean yield (percentage of accepted applicants who actually enroll), this isn’t true. For the class entering in 2008, Chicago’s yield was 38.4%—right in the ballpark with Duke’s yield of 40.8% and higher than a lot of top-25 schools. I do think the neighborhood and the Chicago location may be factors in keeping the applicant pool small, however. Hyde Park is OK but it can feel a little like a besieged island, and it may not feel terribly safe to visiting prospectives (or their parents). Also, Hyde Park does feel cut off from the Loop, the Near North Side, and the North Side generally, so visiting prospective applicants may not experience the buzz and vibrancy of Chicago as a city. Also I think there’s a pretty deep anti-Midwestern bias on the part of many people in the Northeast for whom going to Chicago may feel like being exiled to Siberia. It’s hard to separate these factors; probably for many it’s a combination, with the Midwestern location being less than ideal, the urban setting being more daunting than attractive, and the school’s reputation as a place for workaholic uber-intellectuals—“the place where fun goes to die”—combining to make Chicago a place that doesn’t make the final cut on where applications are going.
But that means for those highly qualified candidates who are attracted to its outstanding academics, it’s a bit easier to get in than many of its top-tier rivals.</p>
<p>If you walk four blocks east, you won’t end up in the ghetto. You will end up in the Lake :)</p>
<p>stop nitpicking, you know what I mean</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Chicago can’t help a lot of the factors that serve as a deterrent to potential applicants. The location in particular really hurts. Being accosted by one homeless person a day on average is definitely annoying. Oh, and I can guarantee you that most of the people who visit and are scared to death are just afraid of black people. I’ve had people stop their car right next to me and ask me in a very low voice if this neighborhood is safe. But what are you going to do, buy out large chunks of land and force out all the black/poor people? Oh wait, we tried that already.</p>
<p>I know. I spent two years there, over 25 years ago. 61sh street, cottage grove, 47th, the lake. Blue phone boxes. I know the drill. </p>
<p>Unless its gotten far far worse than it was, I wouldn’t pass up the school if it was an otherwise good match.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Statistically speaking, it’s become considerably better.</p>
<p>“But what are you going to do, buy out large chunks of land and force out all the black/poor people? Oh wait, we tried that already.”</p>
<p>and it worked. In the '60s, IIUC, they couldn’t get faculty. The transformation of the neighborhood saved the school. Now folks are complaining cause they can’t jog down to 63rd street or walk downtown.</p>
<p>Oh, I know, it did save the school. But try to do it again in the 21st century and see how far it gets you. It would be a PR crisis.</p>